RIAA Wins Song-Download Case

A jury has handed a victory to the music recording industry, which had claimed a Minnesota woman infringed song copyrights by using online media to illegally download and distribute music, according to court documents.

In the civil case, a jury in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota on Thursday found that Jammie Thomas infringed copyrighted song recordings, according to documents. The jury awarded damages of $9,250 for each of 24 recordings, or a total of $222,000, according to documents.

The companies included EMI Group's Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros Records and UMG Recordings.

Media reports described the case as the first such file-sharing lawsuit brought by the music industry to go to trial.

The recording companies sued Thomas in April 2006 after 1,702 music files were traced to a computer tied to her, according to court documents. Investigators on February 21, 2005 located an individual with the screen name "tereastarr@KaZaA" using the Kazaa file-sharing software program, according to the documents.

"This individual was downloading copyrighted sounds recordings from other users of the Kazaa network, and was distributing copyrighted sound recordings stored on her computer to other Kazaa users," the plaintiffs said.

Thomas, in documents, denied the allegations of the complaint "that relate to any allegations that she ever used any (peer-to-peer) network, including Kazaa."

Thanks for the info to Yahoo! News.

Comments

[Aftertime]

serves her right~
still kind of unlucky how out of millions of other people who downloads illegally, she got picked and sued, even if it is just to set an example for everyone

[ShaDoW0lf]

This isn't some kind of dictatorship by force. We don't use "examples to everyone else." If you're guilty, you should be put on trial and sentenced. If the record company has a list of people who have committed such fraud, it is completely unjust to pick a few people on the list as "examples." either they should hand the entire list to the authorities, or not at all.

[revan1013]

I'd like to see them actually get that much money from her. It's sad they feel they are losing enough money to prosecute average people because the companies overcharge for CDs. The injustice is in the prices of the music and the low royalties the artists get, not in that people are fed up with it and download as a way of escaping going bankrupt to pay for music.

[ThE cAnDyMaN]

jamie thomas is also the name of a well known skater. But on topic, i agree that its unlucky to be the one sued but its gotta happen to someone dunnit?

Checked/deleted.

[Vrstone87]

That's what happens when you are dumb enough to use P2P in the first place.
If yer gonna do it.....use torrent and IP Guardian

[duncang]

revan1013 wrote:

I'd like to see them actually get that much money from her. It's sad they feel they are losing enough money to prosecute average people because the companies overcharge for CDs. The injustice is in the prices of the music and the low royalties the artists get, not in that people are fed up with it and download as a way of escaping going bankrupt to pay for music.

Nope. I think the royalties the artists get are perfectly fair. Think about it, if you work for a record company, how many people do you have to pay? Far more people than those in a band. The people that work for the label should be able to afford a comfortable life too, you know. In an ideal world the artists would be paid more but it's not unjust that that's not the case.

Why can't people understand this?

[ryugaiden11]

She had it comin.

[Guitargasm]

i personally dont think we should allow illegal downloading of music, or any downloading at all. yes theres the internet, so it will always happen, but the artists dont get any recognition for music downloaded off kazaa. the best selling album of all time will remain the best selling album of all time ...for all time. more and more people download each year, so less and less people buy each year. sooner or later, whats going to happen to recording industry, and the artists themselves. if an unheard of artist comes in to the studio and records a great album, but people put it on kazaa and advertise it over the internet, the album may only sell 10,000 copies. that artist wont be signed again. i understand music is expensive, i understand that not everyone can pay for all the music they want, but people who download illegaly need to understand that they are slowly destroying the music industry. most of them are too greedy to realize that.

[Diablo1986]

I just hope there comes a time when the downloading will be so bad that the only artists left are the ones that are true to the music they're making, instead of the money they make for their "art."

[Fred1000000]

Gee, good thing the artists don't make anything off the album. (Only live shows. They MIGHT make a penny per album)

[Guitargasm]

Fred100000 wrote:

Gee, good thing the artists don't make anything off the album. (Only live shows. They MIGHT make a penny per album)

are you kidding? artists make a lot more than a penny per album. yes they dont make a LOT, but i think you're exaggerating a little bit.

[cromulent]

dunno why people here are saying she deserves it or whatever. They consider guitar tabs copyright infringement as well.

[the_extremist00]

lol guitar tabs copyright infringment is ridiculous

anyway
i dont think that 1 person sued is gonna set any example at all, this is something that they can never win, im not taking any sides here but, how the hell are you gonna put limits on the INTERNET ? as far as i know i can share mp3 trough e-mail, actually there is a system for that "peer2mail", and its againt the law even for government to go looking on your mail

they have to find a new way other than records to publish music, internet conects the whole world together and they are fighting it
maybe record comanies are doomed, artists will record themselves and put stuff online for a very cheap price, like 50 cents a song, then make their big money out of concerts and stuff like this

"teh internetZ are seriouz buiznezz" indeed =P

[GiantRaven]

She was sharing a large amount of songs on P2P networks

Serves her right

[sadistic_monkey]

She deserves to get charged, but 9k per song is a bit too much IMO.

[Hendrix1721]

screw big corporations, they make enough money as it is. why not let us download songs for free? they still make millions and sit in their mansions comfortably, so why do they need to charge $10,000 per song. **** that. all power to her for "stealing" those songs. i know it isnt right to take them for free but for all the money the companies are making it serves them right to be robbed bc hey are robbing us blind at $16 a CD at any store in any mall across the country. as zach de la rocha once said "its a hypocrisy that we all need to expose" i own about 200 CDs and i download songs on P2P software. I'm paying my portion to the companies every week when i buy at least one new cd, so why shouldnt i get something free for all of the money i gave those ****ers?

[hardrocker64]

She is the first of 26000 cases. They need to shut down the networks as opposed to going after a handful of people. If it is there, people will use it. They stopped napster and did not take it any further. The record companys dont want to spend all the $ in legal fees to fight. ???? cause they cant win??? It is here to stay. Sorry record co.!!

[hardrocker64]

Not to mention, I cant tell you how many CDs I have bought over and over from the Album format to cassette to CD and now REMASTERED CDs at those prices. They also have quit making alot od CDs. If I cant buy it at the store, then what the F @$!%

Hendrix1721 wrote:

screw big corporations, they make enough money as it is. why not let us download songs for free? they still make millions and sit in their mansions comfortably, so why do they need to charge $10,000 per song. **** that. all power to her for "stealing" those songs. i know it isnt right to take them for free but for all the money the companies are making it serves them right to be robbed bc hey are robbing us blind at $16 a CD at any store in any mall across the country. as zach de la rocha once said "its a hypocrisy that we all need to expose" i own about 200 CDs and i download songs on P2P software. I'm paying my portion to the companies every week when i buy at least one new cd, so why shouldnt i get something free for all of the money i gave those ****ers?

[MrYoshida]

$9,250 for each of the 24 recordings? Man, I hope those were some damn good songs.

[NaMeLeSsEviL]

lol i agree with yoshida but did u guys get her name it wuz Jammie Thomas a little differently spelled than the skater Jamie Thoman XD i just thought that wuz funny lol

[X_BassGuitar_X]

hardrocker64 wrote:

She is the first of 26000 cases. They need to shut down the networks as opposed to going after a handful of people.

The networks? But we.....

....we ARE the network!

-Verizon Wireless

[Jackolas]

MrYoshida wrote:

$9,250 for each of the 24 recordings? Man, I hope those were some damn good songs.

[TWISTEDFender]

i bet they were rap songs

[RockInPeaceDime]

Aftertime wrote:

serves her right~
still kind of unlucky how out of millions of other people who downloads illegally, she got picked and sued, even if it is just to set an example for everyone

lmao serves her right? wtf..$9k a song, 220k for 24 songs? That's ****ing idiotic and absurd and a complete joke. What's funny is the artists she downloaded from won't see a cent of that money...isn't that the whole idea behind opposing dling music? Apparently not, apparently it's just a bunch of old white guys who produce any piece of shit they find and then get pissed when people won't pay 20$ for it at a store.

[Rebourne]

She definitely broke the law. However, this is a misuse of copyright laws in my opinion. Copyright laws were created to prevent people from copying material and profiting from it. I would argue that these cases should fall under theft laws. To charge a normal person $10,000 for one song is absurd and borders on cruel and unusual.

[RockInPeaceDime]

Guitargasm wrote:

i personally dont think we should allow illegal downloading of music, or any downloading at all. yes theres the internet, so it will always happen, but the artists dont get any recognition for music downloaded off kazaa. the best selling album of all time will remain the best selling album of all time ...for all time. more and more people download each year, so less and less people buy each year. sooner or later, whats going to happen to recording industry, and the artists themselves. if an unheard of artist comes in to the studio and records a great album, but people put it on kazaa and advertise it over the internet, the album may only sell 10,000 copies. that artist wont be signed again. i understand music is expensive, i understand that not everyone can pay for all the music they want, but people who download illegaly need to understand that they are slowly destroying the music industry. most of them are too greedy to realize that.

The record companies have already destroyed the music industry by producing nothing except things that will get them money and temporary popularity. They'll produce any bag of shit that comes up to their doorstep as long as it has the ability to be played on MTV and the radio. They don't give a **** about the industry, they want money and they'll be long rich and long dead before the music industry collapses (which will never happen anyway).

[Beaners_31]

I feel sorry for her. but this is a step closer to bringing the record industry down. Think about it, real musicians know how to produce their own albums, so they don't need no producer like that. WE don't need all these fancy lights, and video screens at concerts, all we need is the music.
Fans will be with you, well true fans of music...

[Regular_Guy]

I also feel sorry for her.

[Covin]

TWISTEDFender wrote:

i bet they were rap songs

I bet they were too.

I wish people would just buy CDs. It's really not as expensive as people make it out to be. Most big-time retailers are at each other's throats with sales and what not. Best Buy CDs the first week they are out are ALWAYS 9.99 or cheaper.

Anybody that downloads and fronts the excuse that it's too expensive to purchase is really just too lazy to purchase.

[elmolikepie]

Somewhere, Lars Ulrich is having the boner of his life reading this.

[kirkadolph]

hahah jamie thomas...

[giveitaname87]

Rebourne wrote:

She definitely broke the law. However, this is a misuse of copyright laws in my opinion. Copyright laws were created to prevent people from copying material and profiting from it. I would argue that these cases should fall under theft laws. To charge a normal person $10,000 for one song is absurd and borders on cruel and unusual.

Excellent point.

[nightrain28]

elmolikepie wrote:

Somewhere, Lars Ulrich is having the boner of his life reading this.

Haha. I hate downloading though. Its seriously contributing to the loads of shitty music nowadays because record companies can't afford the cost of bands who actually are musicians.

[bortbort]

While downloading Music and such is wrong, I find it more wrong that the company's the produce the P2P and torrent software that allow people to do so aren't being held responsible. Copywrited material should not be allowed on those services. A simple disclaimer of "do not use this program to ahre copywrited material" should not give them a free pass.... If there wasnt these programs, it wouldn't be possible. Sure theres many "Legal" uses of these programs... Its well known what they will be used for more then likely.

[Metal_Rich]

elmolikepie wrote:

Somewhere, Lars Ulrich is having the boner of his life reading this.

"Oh man I got a chubby,"
"CHUBBY GOOD!"

[deansouthpaw]

downloading is here to stay. sorry RIAA, you already lost. they need to find a new means into people's wallet's, otherwise, their phony industry will vaporize.

[new_decade]

loads of people are sued all the time by record and film companies, its just that they usually settle out of court for just a couple of thousand, but she was an idiot for thinking she could beat a massive corporation in court. whatever your opinion on file sharing, its still illegal.

[duncang]

g8erfan1 wrote:

duncang - you're an idiot. Without the bands creating music, these record company *****s wouldn't have jobs. They are the ones who need to kiss the artists feet. What are the record companies creating? Not a damn thing. The artists get screwed from cd sales.

Funnily enough, the artists are fully aware of, and agree to, the profit sharing proposals that the label offers them. If it's too low, they'll try to haggle, or go to a different label. I'm pretty sure an understanding of simple business is all that's required to make you realise that I'm not an idiot, and that you're looking at this from an incredible biased and uninformed perspective.

[FS Guitar]

either she has a shit lawyer or the RIAA payed of the jury because that verdict is bullshit. out of the millions of people that download songs, how do they just punish one person?? it's like arresting someone for smoking pot. there of millions of people that do it and it can't be stopped by force like this. if they really want file sharing to stop then they should either make a better business model or creat better technological means of preventing it. it's unconstitutional to use the copyright law to sue an average person hundreds of thousands of dollars for just listening to music. if she were selling it, that'd be another thing, but Kazaa and co. have millions of users who do exactly the same and you can't end the problem by suing every last one of them. you'd have a full on revolution on your hands!

[chris_kedro]

I'd be willing to bet >90% of the people in this post would be sued for more than $222,000 if they went to court.

[Potato_Souffle]

For everyone who's saying "shut down the networks," that's what the RIAA did at first, but the owners of the networks got smart and moved their servers to countrys where they couldn't be sued, or made themselves otherwise impossible to shut down.

[octopig]

i did not understand this article, and im 99% sure im misunderstanding it... pretty much everyone i know that owns a computer downloads songs, like what did she do sell them or sumthing after she got them for free...i just didnt get it, it wasnt clicking

checked.

[Lotz222]

RockInPeaceDime and Guitargasm i agree with you both. Yes, the record industry SHOULD be paid for there services because it is a business. But i do believe the record companies are failing (horribly) to adapt to the new age of the internet. Does it make it right to download illegally? Of course not, but the record companies need to change there strategy. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only thing i can remember they have done is the past 8-10 years is drop prices by 3-5 dollars. I mean it seems like they are still using cassettes instead of Compact Discs. They have to start taking chances or slowly melt away (which sorry to say will take a long time).

[punkrocker10115]

duncang wrote:

revan1013 wrote:

I'd like to see them actually get that much money from her. It's sad they feel they are losing enough money to prosecute average people because the companies overcharge for CDs. The injustice is in the prices of the music and the low royalties the artists get, not in that people are fed up with it and download as a way of escaping going bankrupt to pay for music.

Nope. I think the royalties the artists get are perfectly fair. Think about it, if you work for a record company, how many people do you have to pay? Far more people than those in a band. The people that work for the label should be able to afford a comfortable life too, you know. In an ideal world the artists would be paid more but it's not unjust that that's not the case.

Why can't people understand this?

Because they cut what the artist gets. Again. The artist only get 2 or 3 cents an album whereas the record label get 5 or 6 dollars.

[octopig]

like from what i understand everyone that downloads songs and actually enjoys music is going to be sued for tons of money and then wont have any left to actually buy the cd if the song they really enjoy the song they downloaded...kind of ironic eh?(yea im canadian)

[octopig]

Covin wrote:

TWISTEDFender wrote:

i bet they were rap songs


I bet they were too.

I wish people would just buy CDs. It's really not as expensive as people make it out to be. Most big-time retailers are at each other's throats with sales and what not. Best Buy CDs the first week they are out are ALWAYS 9.99 or cheaper.

Anybody that downloads and fronts the excuse that it's too expensive to purchase is really just too lazy to purchase.

haha ur lucky u dont live in bridgewater nova scotia where the only cd store is a cd plus and where all metal cds are over 20-15 dollars and with tax are about 30 bucks, for sum reason the more popular rap music is less only about 15 bucks, but still more expensive

[Draken]

It would help if CDs weren't overpriced, i love what radiohead are doing, it'll prove how much people are willing to pay.

[Killa K]

Thats why we don't use P2P guys. lol. All about the rapidshare.

[DougC84]

Draken wrote:

It would help if CDs weren't overpriced, i love what radiohead are doing, it'll prove how much people are willing to pay.

agreed. i'm not a big radiohead fan, but what they're doing is AWESOME, and they get more $ for it.

[dohc_prior]

they should sue kazaa or limewire instead of her.
would'nt want to be in jammie's shoes right about now.
let's no be surprised if we find out that jammie ends up hanging herself.

[cwl22195]

Just because they package cd's and overprice shouldnt mean we have to buy them, If somebody pre-packaged Air and soled it in a store should it mean we have to buy there overpriced pre-packaged descenzitized CD'S THIS IS SO WRONG IN SO MANY WAYS

[cwl22195]

Yore lucky you dont live in milford, ohio becuase my closest store for miles is $20-$30 and thats just the older cd's like master of puppets by metallica, for the newer cd's its like $40-$45
45 BUCKS FOR A F*UCK|/\/G CD
HE|| YEAH THERE OVERPRICED

[Mudvayne_4_Life]

Meh, I can't say anything. I download albums. I'd gladly buy the albums, but I don't have the money, so hell, if I didn't download the albums, then I still wouldn't be hurting them because I still wouldn't be able to buy the albums.

And I agree with Killa K. Rapidshare > P2P Networks.

[smash119]

A lot of the problems is simple economics. The record industry model of producing a massive amount of artists at an enormous cost forces the industry to pocket more from the artist. All of this over saturation of the market causes people to backlash because they don't want to buy an inferior product. An industry is slow to change, but the only way that record companies will win is if they finally acknowledge that they need to change. They should stop over saturating the market, throwing everything they've got in the hopes that some of it will stick. They should realize that CDs are a dying medium. While a physical medium will never completely go away in my opinion, it is time to realize that digital downloads are the future. They should stop ripping off their artists, the people that make them rich, and they should stop alienating their customer base by bring lawsuits against them!

Downloading music illegally is a symptom of a larger problem, it is not THE problem.

There are probably other points I may have missed in this hasty written post...I'm open to plenty of other suggestions.

[punkrockdude2]

thank god for being a part of a fourm where they upload anything you want and having torrents from different countries. I hate limewire it doesnt even have any good porn anymore.

[cwl22195]

The only problem is, IF we start downloading The music industry will weaken and everybody knows the music is slowly dying
im not saying its dead , but it will kill it faster

[Thrash Metal]

This is a load of crap. If the songs are out there to download, then someone bought the cd at some point or another. And if that someone bought the cd and is SHARING it with others through a network... why the hell is that wrong? By this logic, every time a friend comes over and eats some of my food, they should be sued by the food companies because they didn't buy it themselves...

Even though I don't download songs myself, I think it's all a load of crap.

[Gregray88]

Guitargasm wrote:

Fred100000 wrote:

Gee, good thing the artists don't make anything off the album. (Only live shows. They MIGHT make a penny per album) Your completely wrong.


are you kidding? artists make a lot more than a penny per album. yes they dont make a LOT, but i think you're exaggerating a little bit.

[bunnyup]

Personally, i think looking logically at the infrastructure of the music industry is the best idea here...

A record company will put at least $30,000 into recording an album (but this can run into millions). This is paid back to them from the artists royalties before the artist gets a penny for the work. So yea, sucks to be the artist there. But for the record company, this is a risk, much like a bank giving out a buisness loan - they may never see the money again.
Once the album is recorded, Promotion has to be paid for. This is money the company dont get back. If the album flops, its more money down the drain (yet again - can run into millions)
Along with promotion, the company and artist have to pay for lawyers, A+R, Admin staff, the producer(who gets royalties for every unit sold too) the studio staff and a lot more.

So if we download music and never pay for it, what happens?

a)the artist looses royalties and cannot pay the advance to the record company back, leaving them in tremendous debt.

b)With the artist being left in debt, they cannot pay to go on tours (remember some one has to pay for the venues, transport, PA, backline, road crew, insurance and accomadation in advance)

c)Without record companies artists would never be able to pay for album recordings, duplication or publicity.

Thats not really my opinion, more fact. Already companies are reluctant to sign new talent as most are working at a loss. I totally dont agree with the amount they got for each breach of copywrite. But it does belong to the company so hey...

[cherub_rocker07]

i didn't think Kaaza even existed anymore.

[JanB]

load of crap... there were millions of others doing the same and with a lot more songs than that

the RIAA can go themselves

[Psycho Pigeon]

you never know... it could be you next getting a knock on the door from men in black suits...

[PerpetualBurn]

People still use Kazaa?

[dgme92]

bunnyup wrote:

Personally, i think looking logically at the infrastructure of the music industry is the best idea here...

A record company will put at least $30,000 into recording an album (but this can run into millions). This is paid back to them from the artists royalties before the artist gets a penny for the work. So yea, sucks to be the artist there. But for the record company, this is a risk, much like a bank giving out a buisness loan - they may never see the money again.
Once the album is recorded, Promotion has to be paid for. This is money the company dont get back. If the album flops, its more money down the drain (yet again - can run into millions)
Along with promotion, the company and artist have to pay for lawyers, A+R, Admin staff, the producer(who gets royalties for every unit sold too) the studio staff and a lot more.

So if we download music and never pay for it, what happens?

a)the artist looses royalties and cannot pay the advance to the record company back, leaving them in tremendous debt.

b)With the artist being left in debt, they cannot pay to go on tours (remember some one has to pay for the venues, transport, PA, backline, road crew, insurance and accomadation in advance)

c)Without record companies artists would never be able to pay for album recordings, duplication or publicity.

Thats not really my opinion, more fact. Already companies are reluctant to sign new talent as most are working at a loss. I totally dont agree with the amount they got for each breach of copywrite. But it does belong to the company so hey...

thats an excellent point, but i feel that the music industry is doing itself in. downloaders are slowly but surely ruining it, but gradually. i think the main problem is when a label or band thinks a song should have a music video, or an extra "making of" featurette, or a TV campaign to advertise it, with extra costs and provisions, thus making all these companies drive prices higher and higher so not to make a loss. the amount the industry spends on feeding the hype-machines such as recent rap/emo/dance albums by MCR, 50cent, etc. certainly doesn't help their cause. paying the artists, producers, and sound technicians and such will split the industry apart with each guy wanting what the guy sitting next to him makes.

i hope people understand my ramblings, cos i'm a little tired... but what will one guys opinion do to change the music industry? they will fall on deaf ears anyway (record companies, etc.)

[ChoPxSueY]

Scare tactics, f**kin bull. I love those adverts where it says "You wouldn't steal a handbag.... you wouldn't steal a car..." It's not like its as easy to 'steal' a car as it is a song. You can't just download it off the internet. If they stop you here then just go bump the cd from a shop =D

[pyritmann]

elmolikepie wrote:

Somewhere, Lars Ulrich is having the boner of his life reading this

HAHA oh man, funniest part is its probably true.

Yea well I download music all the time from limewire but i dont see a problem with it because i but all the albums of the bands i really like and im pretty sure most of these musicians and recording companys are much higher paid than the rest of the country even if it isnt as much as we assume it is. They have nothing to worry about and if they're real musicians they wont be doing it for the money anyways.

Checked.

[CoolDudeMorgasm]

Every other industry has adapted and changed in order to keep up with technology, the internet, etc. Why can't the music industry?

Also, I'm sure there's plenty of bigger targets than a single mother who has uploaded 240 songs.

[Cheechinator]

This is why I'd like to start my own label. I'd just ask the people who download to buy the CD, and not pull a Lars on them.

[Cobalt Blue]

ShaDoW0lf wrote:

This isn't some kind of dictatorship by force. We don't use "examples to everyone else." If you're guilty, you should be put on trial and sentenced. If the record company has a list of people who have committed such fraud, it is completely unjust to pick a few people on the list as "examples." either they should hand the entire list to the authorities, or not at all.

you couldn't be more right... i know theres some law that if you have a copy write your spose to defend it no matter how small the infringement or you lose your right to defend... say some 14 year old stole a nintendo logo for their web site and used it, they would have to take action or they wouldn't be able to in the future when somebody makes money of something of theirs... why that doesn't apply to music and file sharing i couldn't tell you... probably because so many people do it and if they sued everybody who had 1 illegal mp3 on their computer they would go bankrupt in court fee's

[scarfacesuit]

so why is it so easy to download these file sharing programs if the use of them is illegal? you'd think that someone would have thought to have shut them down by now... apparently not.

[face_haver]

Why don't they just delete the infringing files?

Also the debt to record companies by the artist can only be paid back through royalties so its not like we are putting the artists into actual debt, we are just stopping a tiny royalty flow off an album from reaching them. As long as they tour they will survive.

There will always be bootlegging and sharing on music/movies/games. It doesn't seem to have affected the gaming industry or movies that much, so why is it so terrible for the music industry. I'm most of the people hunting down single moms with 200 songs have done much worse things in their lives that would lead to a much smaller fine that $220,000. The copyright should belong to the artists, since the record companies are obviously abusing being the owners of said copyright.

[whitebluesboy]

People make music for other people to listen to and only that.

[Emenius Sleepus]

Guitargasm wrote:

i personally dont think we should allow illegal downloading of music, or any downloading at all. yes theres the internet, so it will always happen, but the artists dont get any recognition for music downloaded off kazaa. the best selling album of all time will remain the best selling album of all time ...for all time. more and more people download each year, so less and less people buy each year. sooner or later, whats going to happen to recording industry, and the artists themselves. if an unheard of artist comes in to the studio and records a great album, but people put it on kazaa and advertise it over the internet, the album may only sell 10,000 copies. that artist wont be signed again. i understand music is expensive, i understand that not everyone can pay for all the music they want, but people who download illegaly need to understand that they are slowly destroying the music industry. most of them are too greedy to realize that.

wrong. The music industry won't be destroyed because of people downloading. I personally don't want to pay $30 for a cd that I haven't heard, so I'll download it and listen to it, if I like the album enough I'll buy it. And mind you, not from HMV that charges $35 (AUS) for a cd, but from an internet or local distro that will sell it to me for a third of that price.

Secondly, there are other ways of supporting bands; ie concert tickets, merch etc.

And finally, by sharing music you are giving other people a chance to listen to it, where as otherwise they would never have picked up a cd. I've had heaps of friends buy albums because of the stuff I showed them, so really this argument is about the relevance of big record companies rather than life of the music industry.

It sucks that an average person will be destroyed by a body that generates massive profits as it is, and is able to afford much better lawyers than the woman involved

[kfong03]

this file-sharing shit has been going on since the internet has been invented, geez took them that long to catch one out of a gazillion ppl worldwide using file-sharing services? still, unlucky jammie but thx to u the rest of us should be safe for a while

Checked.

Checkeroo.

[Flyingwhitey182]

Potato_Souffle wrote:

For everyone who's saying "shut down the networks," that's what the RIAA did at first, but the owners of the networks got smart and moved their servers to countrys where they couldn't be sued, or made themselves otherwise impossible to shut down.

Ahh Smart man, I believe that our litte ultimate guitar is based in Russia. I could be wrong, but there are ways around the system.

[cynikal123]

wow..i just realized if they fine $9,2500 per song..multiplying that with the songs i have..it would add up to $86,182,250 *gulp*

[Jondy]

truth is, if they fined any of us a buck per song we'd be boned.

[Nebjy]

They are completely unreasonable, why just that woman?

But the guitar tabs=copyright infringement is just lame, so If I tab out a song like the millions of other people out there, Imma be sued? bull.

[iheart_a7x]

screw the RIAA.

livejournal is the best place to download full albums in my opinion. all those filesharing softwares suck.

[cody733]

Something that I feel people are overlooking on this matter is the P2P programs themselves. They state in their EULAs that you should not be using them for copyrighted materials, which takes the burden off of the developers and on the users.

So if you are going to suggest that the developers of the programs should be getting the blame, that's the reason they aren't.

[FS Guitar]

even if we stop downloading, even if they find a way to shut it down, there's still audacity, burning cds, you can still download from torrents if p2p is shut down...it's not a problem that can be solved by suing the common man. music ins't dying, the industry is, which isn't entirely bad. although it provides us with easily accesible music and products, it turns it more into a business than an art. it's time people started seeing beyond the profits anyway. if i make a great album, i'm confident people who respect and like it enough to buy it. if i make a shit album with only a few good songs, then yea of course people aren't going to buy it. the biggest problem is great alvums these days go enitrely unnoticed by mainstream music and shit like 50 cent, kanye west, and fall out boy get promoted to no end. the result? artists who put their heart insoul into an album lose out on recognition and sales, and these scamusicians rake in all the dough soley from hype machines like MTV and "feuds". radio needs to die. MTV needs to die. internet is rapidly gaining control of what remains of the industry and there is NO way to reverse that. you can't stop it, but you can manipulate it in your favor. stop fight ing the waves and the tides guide you.

[nandezfranchise]

There's no way to stop downloading. Its just going to be the standard for all music. Since cd's are becoming obsolete due to IPOD's and digital music, the record industries need a new way to package music.

I truely believe this is the only solution to the problem. Maybe allow everyone to download for free the 1 or 2 singles an album has [ie. the radio tracks], then package the rest of the songs on a cd or flash drive.[for the bands that can still write a full album].

I've always believed that once a song is played on the radio for the first time, it should be available for anyone to listen to anwhere/anytime. Like its a part of history now, in the music encyclopedia or something.

I don't know what the answer is, but this will be an ongoing issue in the industry untill they can package and use digital music to their advantage. Any suggesstions?

[Freunleven]

There are sites that will let you sell your music and keep all of the royalties, provided that you pay an annual storage fee. The catch is, of course, that someone has to be willing to pay for the songs that they download.

Existing artists - Metallica, Korn, Pearl Jam, Gov't Mule, and so - aren't really going to be hurt too badly by downloading. They're marketing machines, with corporations backing them. It's the little guys - bands like the ones most of us are in - who are going to be squashed.

Sure, it's possible to record a CD, get it mastered, pressed, advertised on CD Baby and DigStation, use TuneCore to get the songs onto iTunes and so forth - all for under $15,000. But who, after making their rent, paying their utilities and buying their instruments, has that laying around?

Record companies.

Sadly, even with "affordable" digital technology at our disposal, a lot of artists still need Big Brother to help them get started.

All that being said, I don't want to be specific, but I've got nothing on cynikal123, but my "bill" would certainly be substantial.

[Idiot_Son]

its one thing to download illegally, but to do it to distribute them is another thing entirely

[Mezmy]

Doesn't anyone think the fine she has to pay is way over the top? I mean, 9000 for every song? That's just sick...
That's at least 4500 times the price you have to pay it on Itunes or something

[chieftanec]

Radiohead has the right idea.

[Sloofus]

ShaDoW0lf wrote:

This isn't some kind of dictatorship by force. We don't use "examples to everyone else." If you're guilty, you should be put on trial and sentenced. If the record company has a list of people who have committed such fraud, it is completely unjust to pick a few people on the list as "examples." either they should hand the entire list to the authorities, or not at all.

Why? Technically it's "their" music getting ripped off. They have had a crime committed against them and they have to right to pursue legal actions OR NOT. I disagree with the RIAA as much as anyone, and it sucks that this woman got the book thrown at her, but the RIAA can press charges on whomever has taken an illegal actions against them. They can also choose to ignore any illegal actions taken against them.

[Guitar_G]

This is so ****ing stupid. Even musicians download songs. Face it, if you're a session musician and if you have to learn songs you've never heard in your life, you'd have to be an idiot not to get the songs by any means necessary, even if it's off Kazaa or something similar.

[Dead_End]

g8erfan1 wrote:

duncang - you're an idiot. Without the bands creating music, these record company *****s wouldn't have jobs. They are the ones who need to kiss the artists feet. What are the record companies creating? Not a damn thing. The artists get screwed from cd sales.

very true, but how many bands were extremely rich and famous before joining their record companies, not as many as there are bands becoming rich&famous after the companies ^_^

[Dead_End]

^ + i think she deserved it, stealing music is killing the music industry, just buy the cd, or even a song off of itunes O.o

[Magero]

To anyone crying "OMGZORZ GOOD ON THEM! ARTISTS NEED MONEY RAH RAH RAH!" I'm studying copywrite law and the music industry at the moment and I've crunched the numbers in the average cost of a CD. Out of a 30 dollar CD (Aus dollars), the artist will be lucky to get about one dollar, maybe two. I'm serious, if a band sells 10,000 dollars, they will make about 10,000. Now everyone always says "well, 10 grand is a lot!" yes, but if thats all a band sells in one year....thats 10,000 for....4 people? 5 people? for one year...thats piss-poor. All the money is made from merch (because they will pay about 5 dollars for a shirt and sell it for 30-50) and tours. Even people in the music industry will support music downloading to a certain extent, because they know how (RELITVLY) un-damaging it is. This is a travesty of justice....

[Magero]

*uh, sells 10,000 CD's. ****ing typo.

[earplay]

I can't believe how many people on here think she actually deserved this. Stealing kills the industry?? yeah, right. Download, but you feel like the CD is worth $15, then go buy it. If I download a CD and give it to a couple friends, some of them will go out and buy a CD that they've never heard about before.

[Zman]

Isn't that charge a little, er, excessive? I mean $222,000 for 1,702 songs. I say she should just pay double what each song is worth on iTunes or Napster (usually $0.99)

Checked.

[copet]

I think the charge is excessive, since she definitely did not do $222,000 dollars worth of damage to the artists. She probably would have not bought any of the CDs/Songs if she didn't download them.

[thedarkblues06]

Metal_Rich wrote:

elmolikepie wrote:

Somewhere, Lars Ulrich is having the boner of his life reading this.
"Oh man I got a chubby,"
"CHUBBY GOOD!"

I read this and literally L O L'd.

[cloudy_skies]

BOO! Charging that much money for those songs is wrong and illogical. That woman definitely didn't do $222,000 worth of damage to anyone. If she were a professional shoplifter and stole CDs from a store to sell them, maybe the fine would be justified, but people download music every day and they are doing nothing worse than using the tabs on this site. (Of course this site is protected because it is not American and doesn't follow American laws.)

[bassmanjoe08]

Its the 21st century, for Gods sake, almost everyone downloads. What are they going to do, arrest 70% of the worlds population?

[kd420]

I have a few problems with this. Firstly, technically, the companies have a point here with having copyrighted music, but they have grossly overestimated the price for each file. Secondly, they say she has been "distributing" the music. If she was using Kazaa, she was just uploading what she had downloaded, she shouldn't bear the whole amount when other people clearly uploaded it to her. If they want to sue her, they should look at how much money individually they would have received FROM HER if she had not downloaded, not from all the others. I think the companies have furthered they're money-grabbing image with this case. If a BAND ever sued me for any hypothetical illegal music I had, I would pay in an instant. But to make your point in such an obscene way, making this random person pay so much so you can scare people, I find that much more ethically wrong than downloading.

[bunnyup]

Idiot_Son wrote:

its one thing to download illegally, but to do it to distribute them is another thing entirely

Excellent point

xx

[bullsonparade13]

Rebourne wrote:

She definitely broke the law. However, this is a misuse of copyright laws in my opinion. Copyright laws were created to prevent people from copying material and profiting from it. I would argue that these cases should fall under theft laws. To charge a normal person $10,000 for one song is absurd and borders on cruel and unusual.

Genius

[soadquake981]

That's stupid. Who the hell uses Kazaa anyway? Or Limewire for that matter? It's so easy to get caught, or to get viruses. Bittorrent was invented for a reason.

[w2zk]

P2P, is it really so bad? I do not understand why people go around saying that she deserves it. Philosophically speaking, what is stealing? I ask anyone who reads my post this question. Stealing, in my opinion, is when someone obtained something that does not belong to the person. Stealing can also be defined as taking something without permission. Now I do not know about you, but obviously she did not obtain anything and offend any of those two philosophical ideas. Does music truly not belong to her, or anyone for that matter? Did she take without permission?

Music in my opinion belongs to everyone because technically music is a sound, a sound wave to be exact, that goes through someone's ears and the eardrums vibrate to create understanding in that person's head. We cannot say a sound belongs to anyone, that will make it seem like we will have to pay copyright fees to every sound heard belonging to to the original source. But from my understanding we might not be arguing about that, we might be arguing about filesharing. So let us ask ourselves again, does these files not belong to her? True, she did not pay for them. But someone else did, and that same person is willing to share with everyone. Therefore, that person that uploaded it and brought it in the first place, has made it public for everyone including her. That also means, she obtained permission from the uploader.

Of course, we might actually have to go further and say that the copyright source belongs to RIAA, and not the person who brought the CD. I myself do not study law, but I do know that when someone carjacked me, I called the police and if the suspect is captured, I get money back after I sue him or her. So then let's think, if someone downloaded from me, why is RIAA suing? Based on RIAA's logic, BMW will have to sue the person who carjacked me because BMW mass produced it, I only pay for it. So the car's rights still belongs to BMW. If that is the case, then why should I buy the car if I do not own it? Given that own the CD, I believe that there is absolutely no way that a third party can come around doing whatever they want.

To be frank with everyone, RIAA is strange. I do not agree personally that we can go around saying that either we sue everyone or we don't sue. Whoever is caught should face trial. I say this because we cannot possibly use absolutism. If we use absolutism, let's say in cases of murder, then we will have to agree that either we catch every murderer or we don't catch any at all. But I do not see what she is doing is illegal. Hence, she should not be arrested in the first place.

I find many faults in the logic of RIAA. $9,000 for a song is preposterous because to be honest, most people download only because they are poor, they don't like every song in the album, or the song itself is too old to be found in stores. True, if she committed a crime, she should be forced to pay whatever amount is infringed or sued upon (for example how a lady is suing McDonald's for $20 million because she wished tricked to have a hoax body search.) However I still do not see what is so illegal about.

I hope I do not bore anyone with my thoughts on this issue, and I hope that I myself do not have any faults in logic. My point is clear, downloading should not be illegal because there is nothing wrong about it. If anyone tries to prove me wrong, prove how is it wrong.

Checked a la Blues.

[vIsIbleNoIsE]

w2zk wrote:

P2P, is it really so bad? I do not understand why people go around saying that she deserves it. Philosophically speaking, what is stealing? I ask anyone who reads my post this question. Stealing, in my opinion, is when someone obtained something that does not belong to the person. Stealing can also be defined as taking something without permission. Now I do not know about you, but obviously she did not obtain anything and offend any of those two philosophical ideas. Does music truly not belong to her, or anyone for that matter? Did she take without permission?

Music in my opinion belongs to everyone because technically music is a sound, a sound wave to be exact, that goes through someone's ears and the eardrums vibrate to create understanding in that person's head. We cannot say a sound belongs to anyone, that will make it seem like we will have to pay copyright fees to every sound heard belonging to to the original source. But from my understanding we might not be arguing about that, we might be arguing about filesharing. So let us ask ourselves again, does these files not belong to her? True, she did not pay for them. But someone else did, and that same person is willing to share with everyone. Therefore, that person that uploaded it and brought it in the first place, has made it public for everyone including her. That also means, she obtained permission from the uploader.

Of course, we might actually have to go further and say that the copyright source belongs to RIAA, and not the person who brought the CD. I myself do not study law, but I do know that when someone carjacked me, I called the police and if the suspect is captured, I get money back after I sue him or her. So then let's think, if someone downloaded from me, why is RIAA suing? Based on RIAA's logic, BMW will have to sue the person who carjacked me because BMW mass produced it, I only pay for it. So the car's rights still belongs to BMW. If that is the case, then why should I buy the car if I do not own it? Given that own the CD, I believe that there is absolutely no way that a third party can come around doing whatever they want.

To be frank with everyone, RIAA is strange. I do not agree personally that we can go around saying that either we sue everyone or we don't sue. Whoever is caught should face trial. I say this because we cannot possibly use absolutism. If we use absolutism, let's say in cases of murder, then we will have to agree that either we catch every murderer or we don't catch any at all. But I do not see what she is doing is illegal. Hence, she should not be arrested in the first place.

I find many faults in the logic of RIAA. $9,000 for a song is preposterous because to be honest, most people download only because they are poor, they don't like every song in the album, or the song itself is too old to be found in stores. True, if she committed a crime, she should be forced to pay whatever amount is infringed or sued upon (for example how a lady is suing McDonald's for $20 million because she wished tricked to have a hoax body search.) However I still do not see what is so illegal about.

I hope I do not bore anyone with my thoughts on this issue, and I hope that I myself do not have any faults in logic. My point is clear, downloading should not be illegal because there is nothing wrong about it. If anyone tries to prove me wrong, prove how is it wrong.

did you copy/paste a school essay, or did you seriously just write a full length paper for a UG discussion board, from scratch?

anyway, i agree with you. music didn't start out as a business, it started out as entertainment. for the rich.

[vIsIbleNoIsE]

and sorry for doubleposting, but your analogy with the BMW is great

[smidy]

They are fighting pretty hard arnt they. Do you think they know they will be obsolete soon because of the net? Technology cut out the grubby middle man (and unfortunatly the artist) and theres nothing they can do without infringeing on the rights of the listeners (DRM).

Unless they get smart

[w2zk]

Too visiblenoise, actually I was pretty mad at the news because I don't understand why she getting sued when we should be focusing more on other things. But thank you for actually reading all of it! :

[w2zk]

Oh, sorry for double posting, I actually did write that from scratch, that was how pissed I was ha ha.

[ChubbyLove]

Just goes to show....its all about the money

[Jamo888]

are you f.uckin' kidding me? Unless this woman was burning CD's and selling them, the only crime she committed was trying to listen to music. Given the high prices of music, combined with the variety of music people listen to, it's impossible to get every album you want. Some albums can't be found at an HMV, and downloading them is the only way to listen to them. The only crime here was committed by the record companies. Maybe album sales are down because the artists on your labels suck and there is no competition between labels because most of them have merged together into one big "shitty music conglomerate". F.uckin' greedy cretins!

checked.

[PMAC01]

Anyone else want to figure out a way to stop money from controlling everything artistic?

[bamann]

Y wouldn't "they" go after the service provider instead of the end user?? That's like the cops standing outside of the drug house and busting the buyer instead of the seller.
I don't know if Ms. Thomas was "downloading" songs and selling them, (wrong) but trading shared files? Come-on.
So now when you get into my ride you will not be able to listen to "my" (store bought) AC/DC CD unless you own one of your own??, or what?, pay a fee to some parasite company who is doing nothing more than the same identical thing? Using the "bands" music files to make a profit... Insane..
I myself write and play. I find it more offensive with the actions of the recording companies to use the artist by telling them that they are loosing money. I wonder if the 220K will be split between the artists? Yep...you can bet that'll happen.
Look... Don't download and sell an artists music. It's not rocket science. And, believe it or not, most all of us know that and don't sell it. We listen.

[DaveDaThrasha]

Yeah,... I have an idea to stop it.

I want every record label executive to take a gun to their head. and pull the trigger.

Unless there was some mass cult like suicide of all those in charge of the music industry, this isnt going to stop. Yeah, Artists make almost no money on CD's, so in downloading your not hurting the artist, but your hurting the label, and in hurting the label you inadvertantly hurt the artist, because some snobby fat rich guy had to get the idea in his head to start sticking his fingers in other peoples business.

I say screw it, keep downloading, Just don't be a dumbass and use Kazaa, that gets you sued.



And on the note of the bill, im somewhere in the 35 million US range.

[blaghostbla]

TWISTEDFender wrote:

i bet they were rap songs

Well not really, she downloaded Opeth, Guns n Roses, Green Day, and like Janet Jacson

[bunnyup]

Wz2k said: "Music in my opinion belongs to everyone because technically music is a sound, a sound wave to be exact, that goes through someone's ears and the eardrums vibrate to create understanding in that person's head. We cannot say a sound belongs to anyone, that will make it seem like we will have to pay copyright fees to every sound heard belonging to to the original source."

Actually, music is an intelectual propery. Thats like saying a book is just ink and paper.

also...

"Of course, we might actually have to go further and say that the copyright source belongs to RIAA, and not the person who brought the CD. I myself do not study law, but I do know that when someone carjacked me, I called the police and if the suspect is captured, I get money back after I sue him or her. So then let's think, if someone downloaded from me, why is RIAA suing? Based on RIAA's logic, BMW will have to sue the person who carjacked me because BMW mass produced it, I only pay for it. So the car's rights still belongs to BMW. If that is the case, then why should I buy the car if I do not own it? Given that own the CD, I believe that there is absolutely no way that a third party can come around doing whatever they want."

This isnt really accurate either, the RIAA is the organisation that protects copywrite holders. All the hardcore "music should be free" guys may find it hard to believe but they do actually protect. As well as protecting labels they also protect anyone who earns any money on songs, you, me anyone. Much like PRS and the MCPS in the UK (where i am). So the anology isnt the best. Its like your lawyer suing the carjacker on your behalf.

I'm not picking holes in your theory, just setting it a little straighter.

People have to remember that when ANY artist signs to a label, be it metallica, weezer, green day, ANY artist, they are selling those songs to the company. The company own those songs. They do not belong to the artist any more. Personally I've been signed to two different labels and am currently a producer so i know how it feels to loose the songs. But doesnt everyone here want to be able to play music for a living?
Do you think half the albums you own would sound just as good if the band paid for it themselfs then had to keep full time day jobs to survive because they dont get paid for the tracks and cant afford to tour because they've spent all their money on the recording?

I'm not on the RIAA's side as ive said in a previous post, $9000 is overkill and a half. Although the RIAA will split the money between all their members which isnt bad, and she'll be paying it back at about a penny a week the first place.

[Hamham272]

Covin :
I wish people would just buy CDs. It's really not as expensive as people make it out to be. Most big-time retailers are at each other's throats with sales and what not. Best Buy CDs the first week they are out are ALWAYS 9.99 or cheaper.

Anybody that downloads and fronts the excuse that it's too expensive to purchase is really just too lazy to purchase.

try living in new zealand then. every new cd that comes out is atleast $25 and anything not popular or mainstream anything from $30 to $50 bucks!!! yeah so downloading does help me get some music that would otherwise cost me hundreds/thousands of dollars. lucky the copyright laws can't reach me over here. it still hasnt stopped me from buying over 100 cds...

[Funkbass796]

Guitargasm wrote:

Fred100000 wrote:

Gee, good thing the artists don't make anything off the album. (Only live shows. They MIGHT make a penny per album)

are you kidding? artists make a lot more than a penny per album. yes they dont make a LOT, but i think you're exaggerating a little bit.

Correction they make about $0.12 per album. Yeah, overexagerating indeed.

Downloading music gets artists exposure and really puts the quality of the artist to the test. I'm pro downloading.

[ShadowsThatMove]

[

ryugaiden11 wrote:

She had it comin.

so do about a million other people, so it's well unfair that she's the only person being prosecuted for it !

[copet]

So, lets say about 40 million Americans illegally download music... I'm pretty sure artists don't need to write any more songs for the rest of eternity, they can make a generous living suing people for the rest of their lives getting 100,000 off of each person.

[nms553]

haven't you guys ever heard of yahoo unlimited, urge, or naptser?? download as much as you want for $80 a year LEGALLY. then just get a compatible MP3 player to transfer your music to...or just use tunebite to remove the protection!

[-kiksu-]

^ maybe but. Is the quality of the MP3 on those that good?

[nms553]

it is better than most p2p downloads....192kb/s

[fagelamusgtr]

she deserves to have been charge, but christ, they laid it down a little thick.

Checked.

[RiseAgainst]

Music is meant to be heard. Not sold.

[LSPapercutAP]

Like the record companies need more money?

[Me2NiK]

The RIAA is a bullshit orginisation that does little to protect the rights of artists. The only reason the RIAA is going after these people is because they know that their existence is no longer necessary and that they want to keep a big deal of downloading music as long as they can.
They're aware of the fact that downloading music is free advertising but they don't care, because the money that comes as a result of that doesn't go to them, it goes to the artist, which isn't what they want. It's the artist that gets the money from playing the shows and selling the merchants and getting people to download their albums off of iTunes for a nominal fee. How much of that money goes to the RIAA and its orginisations? None.
It's no longer about the artist's right to make a living, it's not even about copyright (which is a load of bullshit). It's about the fact that the RIAA is fully aware of the fact that if it allows itself to be, it can be fully replaced by digital distribution. Digital distribution is thousands of times more artist-friendly. Hosting is extremely cheap and means that the artist is not stuck paying to get their records pressed -- it merely means they have to wait about five minutes to get their shit uploaded. It means that they no longer have to depend on a record company (ergo the RIAA) to get their music heard - the internet can do that for them. In terms of artist revenue, services like iTunes (which the RIAA has extensively fought against, despite their blatant legality) are significantly more friendly to the artist and indeed the consumer than the RIAA is.
It costs you roughly 75 cents to buy a protected track and about a quarter more to get an unprotected one. Compare that to the current rates on CD's -- I bought an album the other day (At the Drive-in - This Station is Non-operational; if you're not aware, both the record company of origin and the band itself are defunct) that cost me, before tax, $27 CAD (roughly $27 USD). How much of that do you think went to the artists? With paid digital distribution, about 50% of the revenue from a sold track goes directly to the artists, with the other 50% going to iTunes, as opposed to a distribution rate right now that looks something like 70% record company, 20% record store, and 10% recording artist. So who's the only one missing out on digital distribution here? Seems like it's just the RIAA. That's when, when I say I'm supporting a band, I don't mean that I'm going to go out and buy the album -- that's just supporting the RIAA -- I mean that I'm going to download it. Because the artist sure as hell makes a lot more money that way.

The fact is, the RIAA is looking out for one thing and one thing only, and that's money. It wants to make as much money as it can while remaining legal, and that often means exploiting the law by suing people for ridiculous amounts of money (by the way, that woman must have had a crap lawyer -- it wouldn't be entirely difficult to prove that the RIAA is unjustified in claiming that each of their tracks lost them $9,250 in potential revenue, it just doesn't add up) in order to scare them out of downloading. They're a cartel orginisation that systematically drives up the price of albums because they know that people will continue to buy them anyway by making as many of the other options as possible illegal and detering people from the legal ones by propogating absolute bullshit.

It's unfortunate that we live in a capitalistic society in which artists must sell their music in order to stay alive, but I sympathize. While I don't believe music should be sold, I do believe in the musician's right to live and I believe that the only way they're going to be able to live as a musician is by making enough money to survive.

[hardrock1315]

Fuck this. If an "artist" really cares about their music, they won't care about record sales.

[gavindavis]

i actually own my own record label im happy that people can download my artists songs , it gets them interested in the music and helps them along their way ,not only that if people like the song they're gonna request it on radios and TV and everytime one of our songs get onto the radio we get £75 surely that makes up for all the downloads , its actually only major record labels that give a shit cos they pay so much money for shit rappers to release an album and when it fails they find another way to blame everyone

[bunnyup]

nms553 wrote:

haven't you guys ever heard of yahoo unlimited, urge, or naptser?? download as much as you want for $80 a year LEGALLY. then just get a compatible MP3 player to transfer your music to...or just use tunebite to remove the protection!

Bravo...thats the best compromise and point i've heard on this thread. Everyone gets what they want!

[SkAsupafly]

hardrock1315 wrote:

Fuck this. If an "artist" really cares about their music, they won't care about record sales.

Thats what you think, but hey you're just an ignorant uneducated criminal. Composing their songs requires talent which you probably don't have. If an "artist" really cares about their music they record it and allow anyone to freely listen, but those royalties end up doing a lot for them. your a theif. END.

[Rengori]

bunnyup wrote:
A record company will put at least $30,000 into recording an album (but this can run into millions).

This is why everyone should just listen to black metal.

[Kapalen]

duncang wrote:

revan1013 wrote:

I'd like to see them actually get that much money from her. It's sad they feel they are losing enough money to prosecute average people because the companies overcharge for CDs. The injustice is in the prices of the music and the low royalties the artists get, not in that people are fed up with it and download as a way of escaping going bankrupt to pay for music.

Nope. I think the royalties the artists get are perfectly fair. Think about it, if you work for a record company, how many people do you have to pay? Far more people than those in a band. The people that work for the label should be able to afford a comfortable life too, you know. In an ideal world the artists would be paid more but it's not unjust that that's not the case.

Why can't people understand this?

Because it isn't true. An artist makes about 2.50 a cd while the label makes more like $6 a cd. Plus the artist doesn't make any money until that 2.50 a cd first pays back the recording costs. So a lot of times an artist may not make any money but the label still makes hundreds of thuosands of dollars.

[Kapalen]

hardrock1315 wrote:

Fuck this. If an "artist" really cares about their music, they won't care about record sales.

TRANSLATION: If an "artist" really cares about their music, they won't care about PROVIDING FOR THEIR FAMILIES."

[SkAsupafly]

Kapalen wrote:

hardrock1315 wrote:

Fuck this. If an "artist" really cares about their music, they won't care about record sales.


TRANSLATION: If an "artist" really cares about their music, they won't care about PROVIDING FOR THEIR FAMILIES."

soo true

[w2zk]

To bunnyup: Sorry haven't responded so long, been busy. Anyways, feel free to straighten me, I posted only because I look forward for a debate anyways. I could seriously be wrong too, so please discuss.
Anyways, to quote you
"Actually, music is an intelectual propery. Thats like saying a book is just ink and paper".
I agree with you, music is an intellectual property, but if you would reread it again, I corrected myself into saying that it is not that we are arguing about, it is the filesharing, in this sentance, "But from my understanding we might not be arguing about that, we might be arguing about filesharing." That we can save it for another time if you want, though I believe you win that point.

To quote you again, "This isnt really accurate either, the RIAA is the organisation that protects copywrite holders. All the hardcore "music should be free" guys may find it hard to believe but they do actually protect. As well as protecting labels they also protect anyone who earns any money on songs, you, me anyone. Much like PRS and the MCPS in the UK (where i am). So the anology isnt the best. Its like your lawyer suing the carjacker on your behalf."
It is true that with laws it really protects the freedom of people, in this case music freedom. However, then again, if the artist sold their song to the company, the company owns it. And when the company sells the song to you, you own it. It is the transfer of power (copyright) from the artist to you. After you own the actual disc, it is suppose to be true that you can give or sell it, example selling on ebay or something. If you choose to give the disc or song, you could do in any fashion you want, whether p2p, or email, aim, w/e, technically it doesnt matter. The point is, after I brought the disc, I can do what I want with the disc or the contents. I am only asked that I do not sell the disc as if I created it, but sell it as a third party seller.

Yes, your point about if all artists can't make a living b/c no company signs and pays for them is true, but not completely. I don't agree with the fact that music artists should not get paid b/c its an art. Artists need food and water as well to make art folks. I can be wrong about that of course, but I really don't think so. But just because the artist don't get signed, doesn't mean that they don't have other ways to get paid. When they are popular, they open concerts and charge ALOT. When they are not yet popular, they can sell stuff to promote themselves. They have to start somewhere correct? I don't just walk up to the RIAA and say, "hey im a music guy, sign me please" right? No,I produce something and then get it signed. But instead of getting it signed, I go get it promoted, p2p for example.

[bunnyup]

hey w2zk, hope u can read this. took me a bit to find the thread. Thanks for being a sport, friendly debate rules - i never make it personal and its good to see u dont either

the copywrite thing is a good point, you can sell a cd on ebay or anything like that and not get sued. the problem with p2p is that the music is being duplicated. when you buy a cd you enter into a contract with the record company (its printed on the disk and the inlay) one of the terms of this contract is that you may not duplicate it. If you sell the cd to someone else, then you no longer have the cd. hundreds of people can download a file. The copywrite always belongs to the company.

I agree with you on the unsigned artist charging a lot for concerts to make up money (e.g enter shakiri) but is this any better for the fans? having to pay more to see their favorite band?

Personally I think music fans should be free to download and file share with the likes of unsigned bands and promo songs in the name of publicity. For example, 30 second samples from forthcoming albums from signed bands and full songs from the unsigned bands. Its pretty much unarguable to say downloading and file sharing is totally evil and should be totally banned. So we agree on this point i think?

xxxx

[w2zk]

I'm still here haha, I'm actually glad you responded. The point of debating IMO is to argue about philosophy or thoughts about a topic, there is no point in being violent really haha . Anyways, let's continue.
In theory, you are absolutly correct. In fact, thanks for pointing out the flaw in the copywrite. Sadly though, as long as there is p2p, there is no legitimate means into getting rid of a pirated file from the internet. And to be quite frank, most people would probably just download the whole song anyways. But theoritically, I believe we can both strongly agree on that point that p2p is not completely evil, its what ppl do with them.
I think I have 2 ways that makes everyone happy. The first, legalize p2p and everyone help RIAA think of a new way to make their money, as long as it is not outrageous (personally, the paying of legalized p2p dont sound too bad as a start at all). Second, outlaw p2p of files internationally (so no one can point fingers and said "but that country isnt illegal!") while forcing the RIAA to lower album prices, have more locations globally selling songs, and (somehow) make the whole album's music actually worth buying. There might be more ways but for now I can only see two (more or less likely flawed) ways. I believe one is a win win stance where as number two is a lose lose thing, where everyone is forced to live together. So technically, having payed p2p or somehow legalize p2p and get RIAA making money in other ways is the best to comprimise. What is your take?

[bunnyup]

Yea... p2p doesnt kill bands, people who abuse the privilege do.

I dont see the problem with using legal p2p systems where you pay a small annual fee and can download all that u want. This would mean everyones happy. Fans pay a fraction of the price they would normally for loads of albums, the RIAA get paid which they pass on to the artists, the artists get worldwide publicity and of course make a living.

On the subject of bands making a full album thats totally worth buying... pretty scarce nowadays.

xxx

[xxgenocide98xx]

punkrocker10115 wrote:

duncang wrote:

revan1013 wrote:

I'd like to see them actually get that much money from her. It's sad they feel they are losing enough money to prosecute average people because the companies overcharge for CDs. The injustice is in the prices of the music and the low royalties the artists get, not in that people are fed up with it and download as a way of escaping going bankrupt to pay for music.

Nope. I think the royalties the artists get are perfectly fair. Think about it, if you work for a record company, how many people do you have to pay? Far more people than those in a band. The people that work for the label should be able to afford a comfortable life too, you know. In an ideal world the artists would be paid more but it's not unjust that that's not the case.

Why can't people understand this?

Because they cut what the artist gets. Again. The artist only get 2 or 3 cents an album whereas the record label get 5 or 6 dollars.

Without the label, the artist wouldn't be making any money at all. There would be no album to dispute. What don't you understand about that? I don't see independent bands going out and contracting top-tier record producers, sourcing expensive recording studios, sourcing and producing hundreds of thousands of CDs, DVDs, Merchandise, ETC.

You know who does that? The record company, the people with money. The record company pays for ALL of that in exchange for partial ownership of the music and profits. That's how the industry works.

The artists know what they're getting into when they sign that contract. The record companies are very literally investing in these bands. The record company has ALOT to pay for, not just the workers but the actual cost of producing and promoting the album (the production alone could be into the millions). They front the bands ALL of this money under the impression, the NOTION, that they could possibly earn it back.

Half of the people on this site are ignorant and completely unrealistic. No wonder why I don't come back.

[Andy2k64]

x

[Andy2k64]

Whoops...lol...anyway there are a lot of bands that back downloading inc disturbed!!! like companies need the money anyway. They are just picking on the little people

[Andy2k64]

Kapalen wrote:
TRANSLATION: If an "artist" really cares about their music, they won't care about PROVIDING FOR THEIR FAMILIES."

So bands don't play live shows and make money. Artists can easily go without profits from record sales off live stuff. Like said before a lot of bands agree with free downloads. It encourages people to go to gigs ans to actually buy the albums.

[Wickerman_18]

I thought a maiden was a porn movie when i seen it on the network i downloaded it and it was the best thing that ive ever downloaded i would not know what great metal music is All i used to lisin to was Backstreet boys and Britney spears.So in this case The internet is a great tool to share music that is not popular and stuff you cant buy from your local store.
On Feb 2 maiden is coming to mumbai and im going for the show so the band gets their dues.

[showtheway]

**** you RIAA if i'm ever in a position with my band to choose a label, i'm gonna make sure they're not a member of your bullshit organization

[orgasmickey]

Download music. If it's good music, see the band and pay the outrageous price for a shirt. Support artists in ways that see no money flow through to the RIAA. The industry will inevitably cave in and restructure. Go out of your way to listen to local independent artists and support them. Kill the four.

[Jeffray85]

she got sued 22 out of over 1000 the riaa is in no way winning a thing.